Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uupsi!fozzie!stanley
From: stanley@phoenix.com (John Stanley)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: BITFTP grief!
Message-ID: <7V9a31w163w@phoenix.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 91 14:51:17 EDT
References: <lyndon.674793836@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca>
Organization: Mad Scientist

lyndon@cs.athabascau.ca (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes:

> stanley@phoenix.com (John Stanley) writes:
> >   Then expect that, sometimes, the resources you have allocated based
> >on 'normal' levels of traffic will be insufficient. Don't turn your
> >limits into limits on the net as a whole.
> 
> What's "normal?" 

   Are you asking me to define an absolute level of normal for the net?
No, I have no intention of doing that. You might have noted the '' around
my use of the word normal, and taken that as a hint that it wasn't being
defined or used in a standard way.

> Well, aunro takes in about 9 MB of news every 24 hours.
> We feed that out to two full feeds, plus a couple of partial feeds. 30 MB
> total per day is average for that one machine. On top of that we push about
> 100 K of mail through. Call it 30 MB/day total. 

   Well, you have just defined 'normal' for aunro.

> You're telling me that I
> should configure my system to handle an additional 60 MB burst, for a total
> daily throughput of 150 MB "just in case" ??? John, you are rapidly becoming
> an ass.

   Lyndon, you can't read a simple english sentence. I did not say that
you should configure anything for any level at all. I said that when you
have configured your system for 'normal', that you must expect that the
traffic will exceed the 'normal' level at times. If you choose to
configure your system for the level you feel is normal, don't tell the
rest of the net that that is the level that is allowable for the rest of
the net. 

> No, not to everyones detriment. I, for one, will not miss the traffic.
> There are others who feel the same. Don't be so naive as to think you
> can speak in absolutes. This also makes you look like an ass.

   When everyone else here is speaking in absolutes, it is only normal
to do the same. If you don't want anyone else to speak that way, don't
do it yourself.

> >> end users seem to be really pissed off now that their free ride is over.
> >   Free ride? Are you now paying my bills? Hahahahaha.
> 
> Your news articles traverse through links that are payed for by the

   News? Are we talking about news or about mail? 

> >> the uucp community of Ontario is about to suffer a very large hit on their
> >> connectivity.
> >   The entire UUCP community just has, too.
> 
> More absolutes. Can you back that statement up with any verifiable facts?

   UUCP was connected to anonymous ftp sites via BITFTP. UUCP is no longer
connected to anonymous ftp via BITFTP. Both are facts, both verified.

> You left off the last part of that sentence. It should have read "can't use
> mail for large data transfers."

   When there is a standard definition of what 'large' is, and a clear
guideline to determine what falls into 'large' and 'not large', I will
accept a blanket statement like that. 

   Since there is no such definition, and since any definition would of
necessity be site dependent, it is the height of 'absolutism' to make
YOUR definition of 'large' the one that everyone must use.